IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v7y2011i02p295-298_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Poverty of stimulus and absence of cause: some questions for Felin and Foss

Author

Listed:
  • HODGSON, GEOFFREY M.
  • KNUDSEN, THORBJØRN

Abstract

We examine an aspect of the argument of Teppo Felin and Nicolai Foss (‘The Endogenous Origins of Experience, Routines, and Organizational Capabilities: The Poverty of Stimulus’; 2011) where they reject the claim of Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen (‘Darwinism, Causality and the Social Sciences’; 2004) that habits depend crucially on stimuli from the social environment. We argue that while rightly stressing human agency they also create a false dichotomy between agential and environmental factors in the explanation. Felin and Foss create further confusion by hinting – without adequate clarification – at an untenable notion of human agency as an uncaused cause. We raise several questions of clarification for these authors.

Suggested Citation

  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M. & Knudsen, Thorbjørn, 2011. "Poverty of stimulus and absence of cause: some questions for Felin and Foss," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 295-298, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:7:y:2011:i:02:p:295-298_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137411000129/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geoffrey M Hodgson, 2023. "How stable routines can empower varied behaviors: defining routines as organizational capacities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(6), pages 1319-1332.
    2. Lazaric, Nathalie, 2011. "Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 147-156, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:7:y:2011:i:02:p:295-298_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.